4 ms·

This seems of a piece with trying to directly address the concerns of those who are opposed to nuclear power. This does not work, because most of those folks ac

This seems of a piece with trying to directly address the concerns of those who are opposed to nuclear power. This does not work, because most of those folks actually are not interested in nuclear power at all, and they will never lack for reasons not to do it. This is true of almost anything: It's always pretty easy to come up with reasons not to do something. Those who oppose will simply keep coming up with new reasons not to do it. They will only accept a reduction in usage. Anything that allows us to maintain our existing level of energy consumption will not be tolerated.

Joel_Mckay 2y ago
Fission power is a loss leader non-renewable technology. Initially the $/kWh is actually one of the lowest cost services, but this hides the $9B subsidy the public pays for construction and the 30000 year waste stewardship. Some people think easy solutions are without tradeoffs. Yet fission power only makes sense for remote regions and space missions. Renewables overtook coal this year in some regions. As the economics are an unstoppable force, that will silence the hubris of those that like dangerous toys. My bet is on goat carts for our future =3
- Nifty3929 2y ago
  I think you're making my point for me. 30000 year stewardship? 20 years ago it was only a 10000 year stewardship. Either way, it doesn't make much sense. For one thing, radioactivity is related to half-life. Basically the more radioactive something is, the shorter the half-life and therefore the less time you have to deal with it. When something has a long half-life, that is almost by definition less radioactive. And it's not so hard. Water blocks most of the worst radiation anyway. More importantly, 10,000 or 30,000 years or whatever is just a really, really long time. Storing and "stewarding" the waste is already a sufficiently solved problem. All of the material your family would use in your entire life would fit in a shoebox, and can be stored in a few gallons of water safely. Borrowing hypothetical problems from that far into the future is an example of exactly what I'm talking about: an effectively un-addressable concern that serves only as a placeholder for "I don't want to. Use less energy." The reason that solar and wind haven't fallen victim to this is that they don't scale well enough, and would force us to reduce consumption. If they were on track to increase our overall energy production and use, they would lose support.
  - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    In general, Uranium fission processes are relatively less nasty than the material mixed with decommissioned weapons grade Plutonium. You would need to model the probabilistic decay chains to figure out at which point the hot material is below inhalation hazard levels. "The reason that solar and wind haven't fallen victim to this is that they don't scale well enough" That is a dumb lie, these have already exceeded non-renewable facilities in many jurisdictions last year. While not perfect in every locale, I like distributed solar+battery as they are resilient to localized disasters. Note, many in TX and FL have already shifted over due to faster <8yr payoff periods (i.e. an 18 year service life means near $0/kWh for 10 years). Fission is a nonrenewable loss leader technology, and should be reserved for remote areas or space missions. =3

Joel_Mckay 2y ago

Fission power is a loss leader non-renewable technology. Initially the $/kWh is actually one of the lowest cost services, but this hides the $9B subsidy the public pays for construction and the 30000 year waste stewardship. Some people think easy solutions are without tradeoffs. Yet fission power only makes sense for remote regions and space missions. Renewables overtook coal this year in some regions. As the economics are an unstoppable force, that will silence the hubris of those that like dangerous toys. My bet is on goat carts for our future =3

Nifty3929 2y ago
I think you're making my point for me. 30000 year stewardship? 20 years ago it was only a 10000 year stewardship. Either way, it doesn't make much sense. For one thing, radioactivity is related to half-life. Basically the more radioactive something is, the shorter the half-life and therefore the less time you have to deal with it. When something has a long half-life, that is almost by definition less radioactive. And it's not so hard. Water blocks most of the worst radiation anyway. More importantly, 10,000 or 30,000 years or whatever is just a really, really long time. Storing and "stewarding" the waste is already a sufficiently solved problem. All of the material your family would use in your entire life would fit in a shoebox, and can be stored in a few gallons of water safely. Borrowing hypothetical problems from that far into the future is an example of exactly what I'm talking about: an effectively un-addressable concern that serves only as a placeholder for "I don't want to. Use less energy." The reason that solar and wind haven't fallen victim to this is that they don't scale well enough, and would force us to reduce consumption. If they were on track to increase our overall energy production and use, they would lose support.
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  In general, Uranium fission processes are relatively less nasty than the material mixed with decommissioned weapons grade Plutonium. You would need to model the probabilistic decay chains to figure out at which point the hot material is below inhalation hazard levels. "The reason that solar and wind haven't fallen victim to this is that they don't scale well enough" That is a dumb lie, these have already exceeded non-renewable facilities in many jurisdictions last year. While not perfect in every locale, I like distributed solar+battery as they are resilient to localized disasters. Note, many in TX and FL have already shifted over due to faster <8yr payoff periods (i.e. an 18 year service life means near $0/kWh for 10 years). Fission is a nonrenewable loss leader technology, and should be reserved for remote areas or space missions. =3